Alex Jones?
I think maybe censoring Hitler would have been a good idea, too, but what do I know.
I think maybe censoring Hitler would have been a good idea, too, but what do I know.
If you disagree with Alex Jones, the only ultimate solution is to try and shift the opinions that tens of millions of his viewers hold.
People complain a lot about Alex Jones style thought these days. But what it actually is is the spread of the opinions and views millions of "salt of the earth" folk have always held.
The internet is forcing us to address the thoughts, beliefs and emotions of millions of non-college educated folk worldwide. Ultimately I think it's a very good thing.
What you say must be correct some degree, but to what extent?
I seriously wonder what percentage of US households in say, 1975, did not receive any newspaper subscription for example, what's the dataset you look at for that?
Or even adult literacy in the United States. You could apply this same thinking to many non US parts of the world, but lets confine it to the US.
I feel like it's stating the obvious that most major newspapers and media in 1975 did not reflect the true opinions of a blue collar, rural family in most parts of the United States.
Setting bigotry aside, popular support for isolationism and far too many other issues ran extremely deep.
My feeling is that generally speaking society as of 1975 was entirely predicated on a bottleneck of information flows. If your view was out of step with what the Ivy-League or flagship university educated editor was willing to publish, your views didn't make it into any form of mainstream media.
Nowadays, we directly have to confront those blue collar views, whatever their form.
I reckon that's probably good for humanity in the long term. 100-200 years from now addressing this information and political bottleneck will be good for society. But for now we are being directly exposed to the consequences.
Censoring Hitler looks like a great idea in hindsight but what babys would have gone out with that bathwater?
From what I understand from Bongino is that he is a really popular conservative and was talking about a specific book that Youtube doesn't like.
Can't find him removed for spreading hatespeech, nor inciting violence.
And if it's true then that's incredibly disturbing to me.
YouTube is so big that they really must try to refrain to remove people for their opinions etc.
If robust speech against Hitler had been possible that would be good too. But opposition was censored, wasn't it...
Think about it.
Of course we aren't. That's why newspapers and media outlets of all kinds should be regulated. Any one individual's views are insignificant compared to the fourth estate firepower of think tank funders and media billionaires of all varieties.
There is no equivalence here. The latter can dominate and define public conversations and opinions in a way that most of us can't even imagine, never mind match.
Free speech and monopolistic concentrations of money and media power simply cannot co-exist. You can have one or you can have the other, but there is no way you can have both together.
And without free speech all you have are distortions generated by very powerful people with very loud bullhorns, who will be front and centre about their views some of the time, but deniably covert the rest of the time.
In that kind of environment the concept of censorship is a distraction, because the "freedom" to say what you want - as if it has any real influence at all - is an illusion anyway.